A/HRC/30/45 46. The first information needed is data to understand the extent of the problem at hand. For this purpose, letters have been addressed to all stakeholders, inviting them to provide the requisite data. The response by the due date of 30 June 2015 has been fragmentary at best, as has been the case for the participation of “source countries” invited by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to the two workshops on unilateral coercive measures held in 201328 and 201429 and for the written responses to the Secretary-General from the same States in preparation of the analytical report on this theme, which he submits regularly to the General Assembly.30 The collection of comprehensive data in this regard is an issue deserving further attention by the mandateholder. B. Study and evaluation of the practice of unilateral coercive measures and its adverse impact on human rights 47. On the basis of the fragmentary information gathered, the Special Rapporteur will study the present trends, which all point to an increased resort to unilateral coercive measures despite the concern expressed by the United Nations about this trend. It bears mentioning that concern was already expressed by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1995/45 of 3 March 1995 and regularly reiterated thereafter. The Human Rights Council itself adopted two decisions and seven resolutions31 expressing inter alia “deep concern” at the fact that coercive measures continue to be promulgated. Furthermore, the trend was has been unaffected by the numerous resolutions and outcome documents adopted by the General Assembly,32 the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development33 and other major international conferences 34 strongly urging States to refrain from promulgating and applying unilateral coercive measures. The question arises as to whether the multiplicity of United Nations resolutions adopted on such measures does not signal an emerging customary law and evolving peremptory norms calling into question present trends as they express themselves on the ground. 48. Notwithstanding the 16 targets of sanctions currently applied by the Security Council,35 there are 37 targets for the European Union36 and 3237 for the United States, of which several overlap with Security Council sanctions, the overwhelming majority of the European Union and United States targets being the same countries. Of these targets, 7 concern terrorist entities and traffickers in drugs and blood diamonds, transnational criminal organizations and cybercriminals, which would have been more effective if they had all been concerted at the United Nations level. Many other countries apply unilateral 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 14 See Human Rights Council resolution 19/32. See Human Rights Council resolution 24/14. See A/69/97 and A/68/211. Human Rights Council decisions 4/103 and 18/120, and resolutions 6/7, 9/4, 12/22, 15/24, 19/32, 24/14 and 27/21. General Assembly resolutions 69/180, 68/162, 67/170, 66/156, 65/217, 64/170, 63/179, 62/162, 61/170, 60/155, 59/188, 58/171, 57/222, 56/179, 56/148, 55/110, 54/172, 53/141, 52/120, 51/103, 50/96, 48/168, 46/210, 44/215, 42/173, 41/165, 40/185, 39/210 and 38/197. See TD/500/Add.1, para. 25. See, for example, the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in June 1993. A list of Security Council sanctions regimes in force, along with reference to the Sanctions Committees set up by the Council to monitor each individual sanctions regime, is available from www.un.org/sc/committees/. See http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/docs/measures_en.pdf. See www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx.